The health benefits of circumcision range from marginal to non-existent, particularly when compared between first world countries. This also doesn't take into account the complications that can arise as a result of circumcision.

As to the religious angle, I'm well aware of it, however I don't see religion alone to be a particularly good reason to do anything, much less cut pieces of skin off of an infants dick.

Kayjan Soban

All part of a crazy campaign for abstinance and taking the fun out of sex I'm afraid. Although I would find it horrible if it was mandatory to perform the equivalent surgery on women, which does happen in many third world countries, I still find it offensive that it is accepted out-of-hand just because it's male genitals getting mutilated.

On a more pleasant note: BOOBIES!

amusedskeptic

lets not forget this headline from … about 1 year ago:

Baby Dies of Herpes in Ritual Circumcision By Orthodox Jews

please feel free to google it and find out more.

guest

There are benefits to circumcision. I learned in a human sexuality class that although men are not affected by HPV/cannot be tested for it they are carriers. And men who are not circumcised are more likely to to get infected with HPV. The reasons are unclear.http://www.cancer.org/cancer/penilecancer/detaile…

As stated above, these benefits are marginal. Even those with the most basic grasp on proper hygiene should have no problem remembering to wash their penis. Likewise, they should be practicing safe sex, and if they're not then they have bigger problems to worry about than an uncircumcised cock.

This is from the British Journal. ***The complex anatomy and function of the prepuce, along with the fused prepuce/glans penile mucosa in the immature penis, dictates that neonatal circumcision be strictly avoided, as recommended by the Australasian Paediatric surgeons, Canadian Paediatric Society, and a paediatric urology textbook. Removal of normal genital anatomy in children and infants should be deferred until the individual can make an informed decision*** This is the link if you want to pay for it. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1464… and here is the free article source http://www.restoringtally.com/foreskin/foreskin-a…

Jeni

OK so this is the conclusion of the study on UTI's for intact males. ****The single risk factor of lack of circumcision confers a 23.3% chance of urinary tract infection during the lifetime. This greatly exceeds the prevalence of circumcision complications (1.5%), which are mostly minor.*** from this study. http://www.jurology.com/article/S0022-5347(12)056… Now this is where it gets really good. Check out the conclusion of the study on female UTI's ****The lifetime risk for UTI in women is high (greater than 50%). Between 1988 and 1994 the overall lifetime prevalence of UTI was estimated to be 53,067/100,000 women.**** Yet where is the concern and outrage for these dying women from their UTI's? http://www.jurology.com/article/S0022-5347(05)610…

NINA

"The "health benefits" of circumcision are the same as the "health benefits" of removing breast tissue from all baby girls to prevent breast cancer. Or removing the toes from all babies to prevent ingrown toenails. Or cutting the labia off baby girls to prevent urinary tract infections. It's nonsense. It's not medicine. It's an outdated, unnecessary surgery that started as a blood sacrifice to various gods"

Royal Australasian College of Physicians http://www.racp.edu.au/index.cfm?objectid=65118B1…
"After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand."
"In the absence of evidence of risk of substantial harm, informed parental choice should be respected. Informed parental consent should include the possibility that the ethical principle of autonomy may be better fulfilled by deferring the circumcision to adolescence with the young man consenting on his own behalf."
(almost all the men responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. "Routine" circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in Australia.)

British Medical Association http://bma.org.uk/-/media/Files/PDFs/Practical%20…
"to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate."

The Royal Dutch Medical Association http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Diensten/knmgpublicaties…
"The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children's rights to autonomy and physical integrity. Contrary to popular belief, circumcision can cause complications – bleeding, infection, urethral stricture and panic attacks are particularly common. KNMG is therefore urging a strong policy of deterrence. KNMG is calling upon doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications."http://www.crin.org/resources/infodetail.asp?id=3…
"[30 September 2013] – At a meeting today in Oslo, the children's ombudspersons from the five Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, and Iceland), and the children's spokesperson from Greenland, in addition to representatives of associations of Nordic paediatricians and pediatric surgeons, have agreed to work with their respective national governments to achieve a ban on non-therapeutic circumcision of underage boys."

German Pediatric Association http://www.intactamerica.org/german_pediatrics_st…
(very long, but very much against circumcision, and includes the following)
"Therefore it is not understandable that circumcision of boys should be allowed but that of girls prohibited worldwide. Male circumcision is basically comparable with FGM types Ia and Ib that the Schafi Islamic school of law supports"http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/ear…
"The other claimed health benefits, including protection against HIV/AIDS, genital herpes, genital warts, and penile cancer, are questionable, weak, and likely to have little public health relevance in a Western context, and they do not represent compelling reasons for surgery before boys are old enough to decide for themselves."
(signed by 38 senior physicians, about half of them presidents or chairs of national paediatric or urological organisations).

I use the internet primarily as a way to tote my moral and ethical beliefs! Efficiency!

giant_johnson

My penis has been called both ‘gorgeous’ and ‘statuesque’ from every woman who’s revelled in its sight. Guess what, it’s circumcised!

So I ask, what would you rather have? Would you rather avoid the tiny risk of (a usually correctable) miscalculation in a circumcision, or, gain the high chance of women having sex with you just by whipping it out. Considering the only reason you have a penis is to have sex, and the number of sex partners you’ll have will be unsatisfactory without a circumcision, logic clearly dictates which course to take.

This is apparently the origin of secular circumcision in english speaking countries.

ABeagleKnots

“Son, I see that you’re looking a little red and sore down there. That’s probably because you haven’t washed your penis well enough, including washing under the foreskin. Now, when you were a baby, some people told us we should cut off part of your penis because you might not wash it well enough. But we decided not to cut it off because we believed in you. So wash it carefully from now on, or we’re going to take you to a doctor have have them cut it off, OK?”

Silverdw

Circumcicision was once an act as obiediance to God. Doctors soon found out it helps prevent deseases.

Erohiel

It made sense in ancient history when good hygiene was actually difficult to maintain, and that’s very likely why it was used in religion, as were other health-concern issues, like pork, which was riddled with parasites and proper cooking was much more difficult.
Nowadays though it’s being forced on people because they just don’t trust people to keep themselves clean enough. It’s the same kind of bullshit like social security, they don’t trust you to save your own money properly… And to some extent it’s true, a number of guys would probably have disgusting penises they couldn’t be arsed to wash properly, and a number of people would be washed up and broke when they got too old to work or became disabled….but when it comes to COMMON SENSE issues like cleanliness and saving for the future, people should be left to deal with the consequences of their actions rather than punish EVERYONE to save a handful people from their own stupidity.